Wikipedia:Editor review

"WP:ER" redirects here. Not to be confused with Wikipedia:Expert retention or Wikipedia:Editing restrictions.

Request an editor review

Before requesting a review, please understand the following: Editor review is a process that allows users to have their behavior and contributions to Wikipedia evaluated by peers, who will provide constructive feedback on areas for improvement. Anybody may request a review, regardless of their tenure at Wikipedia. While an editor may remove comments about them that appear to be off-topic or simply personal attacks, it is important to remember that the editor review process may produce comments that the editor may not like or personally agree with, and the editor being reviewed should make every attempt to use this collaborative process to communicate with others. Editors should not refactor comments they dislike. These should either be simply removed or discussed. Administrators requesting a review of their administrative actions should see administrator review. This page frequently gets backlogged, so requests may wait up to several weeks for a response. If you have fewer than 300 edits (or your last request was within the last 3 months), your request may be removed without notice. Please consider reviewing another editor when you request a review.

If you would like to be reviewed, please follow the steps below: Create a subpage using the box below, replacing USERNAME with your username. Please make sure there is no space after your username, as this makes it hard for reviewers to reach your request. Do not save the page yet! Follow the instructions in the box above the request page. Please remember to fill in the requested fields. Optional, but highly recommended: You may put the {{Editor review}} template or the {{Editor review sticker}} template on your user page to advertise the review page. Optional: It is possible to add a userbox onto your User page (after the review is finished) by placing {{User Editor review}} at your user box section on your User page. Instructions on how to use templates may be found here. Optional: As only admins can see your deleted contributions, these admins have volunteered to perform editor reviews focussing on deleted contributions (this will probably be of most interest to newpage patrollers) Optional, but highly recommended: There is a large backlog at Editor Review, so take some time to review some of your fellow Wikipedians.

The editor review process was shut down in June 2014. Making a request is no longer possible.

Instructions for reviewers Reviewers and reviewees should adhere to Wikipedia's behavioral policies at all times. When reviewing, consider these points User conduct – informative edit summaries, constructive comments on talk page, attitude toward others, etc. Number and types of edits – is the editor making positive contributions to the encyclopedia? Users with an asterisk next to their name in the subheader have not been reviewed yet. Users may still need more reviews even if they do not have an asterisk. Also, the older backlogged requests have priority for reviews, because users who have had their requests sitting there for a while often feel like they've been ignored, and every user deserves at least a few positive words on their progress or some constructive criticism if they request it. Please remember to remove the asterisk when you leave a review for an editor. When you have finished reviewing, consider notifying the user with the {{ER done}} template. Please substitute this template. Archives Sections with at least one review will be archived at 2010, 2011, 2012 or 2013 archive thirty days after they have been created. If you are searching for an archive from before 2010, it will be in the 2006–2009 archive.

Click here for unreviewed requests

Current requests

---

MJ94

MJ94 (talk · contribs · count) Hi there, I'm MJ94. I'm an editor here, and would like to get other opinions on how I am doing here at Wikipedia. I am mostly a new page patroller and recent changes patroller. Although I do not edit the contribute content much, I believe that users myself are important to keeping Wikipedia a reliable source of information. Thank you for your time. MJ₉₄ 02:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, I believe every editor is valuable to the project. Some may be excellent at content, some, vandalism reverts or general cleanup. It's all about helping to build an amazing resource, while learning, and enjoying what you do. MJ₉₄ 03:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Questions

1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?

   My primary contributions are in the area of vandalism fighting, new page patrolling, and XfDs. I often participate in discussions at RfA as well. I participate largely in the Wikipedia namespace.

3. Have you been in any disputes over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

   I wouldn't really call it a dispute, but User:Bad edits r dumb and I have crossed paths. I have tried many times to get the editor to contribute productively, to no success. I deal with disputes calmly and maturely. I have, and will continue to discuss any problems I have with someone with them, and hopefully come to some resolution.

Reviews

• Okay, I write some comment. He is very helpful, but sometimes he can very bossy and argumentative and nitpick over procedures. And sometime he talk to u like your an idiot, even if u r an experienced wikipedian. But for the most part he cares about the project and try to do the right thing.--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 03:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• Okay here. Your XFD, Speeedy tagging and vanadal warning is spot on, which seems very good. I would suggest getting some content contribs under your belt, which sshouldn't be too hard. You keep your cool in disputes, and have an overall positive attitude. You seem to be a very good editor, taking into account that you are sometimes inactive due to school. I hope we cross paths again! Buggie111 (talk) 13:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• Review by VictorianMutant:
  • Civility towards the community: No problems here... you seem to be pretty level-headed.
  • Article contributions: You sound a bit defensive above in the way you talk about not contributing to articles. I think vandal fighting, participating in discussions, tagging articles, etc. is just as important as article contributions. I thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. But at least consider this: find an article in an area which interests you which is in sad shape and make it a project. I'm not saying work on it 10 hours a day- just a few minutes every day you're on Wikipedia. Make it your baby- it may take you months, but when you are done, you'll have a permanent contribution to Wikipedia. Vandals come and go- the articles you reverted yesterday because of vandalism will be vandalized again... but that article you get up to GA status will be a testament to your dedication to the project forever.
  • Edit count analysis: Even before I looked at your contributions in detail, your graph tells me you're a vandal fighter, pure and simple. You don't mess around with making your user page pretty and that's a good thing.
  • RfA-worthiness: You really haven't shown much interest and don't have enough edits yet, but given time and a little bit of content work, I would support you.
  • Final thoughts: Keep up the great work. You are one of the most efficient vandal fighters I've seen on here. Don't stop what you are doing... but do consider my thoughts about making one article shine- I bet you could surprise even yourself with how good you could make that article.

• My interactions with this user have been positive, I respect the work he has done and as Buggie111 said his XFD, speedy tagging and vandal warning are spot on, no doubt about that. Given Bad edits r dumb's unwillingness to cooperate and come to a compromise and his cool-calm approach to such disputes, I believe that he would one day make a good Mediator and he definitely proves himself to be a shining member of the community. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 2:24pm • 04:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Paul2387

Paul2387 (talk · contribs · count) I am requesting this review as I feel I am almost ready for the mop and need other editors opinions on wether I'm ready or not Paul2387chat 16:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Questions

1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?

   My primary contributions must be those related to Coronation Street as I am helping develop those pages and adding more historical info

3. Have you been in any disputes over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

   I have had a few disputes over editing but they haven't caused me stress, If there's any problems I discuss them first and try to resolve them as much as possible.

Reviews

• Review by VictorianMutant:

After reviewing a bit of your edit history and seeing your user page, I'm going to alter my usual format I use for editor reviews. Pay close attention to the sentence after this one because it's very important... The community is not likely to give the tools to someone who is too eager to have them. Honestly, the only thing missing from your userpage is a banner at the top which says "Paul2387 for Admin '10!!!" I'm not trying to be mean, just trying to be blunt and maybe you'll finally understand since you've already had a few editor reviews you've ignored and have been through at least 3 failed RfA's... If you really want the mop, you're going about it the wrong way and honestly, for the wrong reasons. The community sees it not as a trophy or brass ring to give out, but a responsibility given to those we trust. If the perception is that you are here only to become admin or bureaucrat, you will only become frustrated because you will never get it. Now that I have gotten that out of the way, I'll start my usual review:

• Civility towards the community: No huge problems here, other than applying for admin so many times so quickly...
• Article contributions: Your contribution isn't very prolific, but when you do edit you do a pretty good job. I would try to branch out from TV articles because they are heavy traffic areas which lots of people edit. Find an article or two which interest you which need major work in an area which interests you, but are lightly edited. Those are the type of articles which are enjoyable to write because you can "create a masterpiece" and turn those articles into GA's or even FA's. Article building should occupy 90% of your time at this point in time.
• Edit count analysis: Your graph doesn't look bad. 40% of edits in article space is better than most nowadays. Your edits to user space are a little heavy (due to the "Party Manifesto" you've put on your user page). You should try to get some more experience with files and categories.
• RfA-worthiness: Forget about it right now! I'm serious- the more you aim for admin, the more unlikely it will be to ever happen. Don't even think about it for at least a year.
• Final thoughts: Specific suggestions- (1) Redo your user page. Remove any and all references to wanting to be an admin or 'crat. Keep the goal section, but change it. Your goals are to write x number of GA's, x number of FA's, etc. (2) Become a grunt interested in building the encyclopedia first and foremost. Go to the community portal and look in the Collaborations and Help out sections. Pick a couple of tasks which sound interesting and become active in those. That's how you will become known to others in the community in a positive way. (3) Don't even think of an RfA for at least a year. Stay away from areas one would normally be seen as "springboards" to admin (xfD's, RfA's etc.) Focus on article building and then after a year branch out a little further and maybe the community will have the trust in you to make you an admin. I know you're likely to see this review as negative, but you shouldn't. I think your contributions to the community are great, but your view of the "way things are" is far off from reality. Thanks, VictorianMutant (talk) 17:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

---

1234r00t

1234r00t (talk · contribs · count) Hello, I had one of these a while ago and decided it was time for a new one. I think I'm going to start a tradition of having one of these every month or so. I'm a fairly impressive user by the amount of contributions I have in a fairly short amount of time. Mr. R00t ^Talk 01:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Questions

1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?

   My primary contribs' have been in the back areas of Wikipedia. I work at WP:UAA, sometimes at WP:AIV wherever there's any pile-up. I also help out on #wikipedia-en-help and am (fairly) active in the account creation process. I'm fairly pleased with the article I got to ITN. I've also done a little GA reviewing

3. Have you been in any disputes over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

   No. I haven't.

Reviews

• Review by VictorianMutant:
  • Civility towards the community: Doesn't appear to be any major problems with civility...
  • Article contributions: IMO, this is an area you can improve on. The most edits you've made to any single article is 12. My advice is to find an article which looks crappy in an area which interests you and make it your goal to make that article as good as it can possibly be.
  • Edit count analysis: This graph shows only 22% of your articles are to article space. You should strive to get that number up to 50%. Yes, vandal fighting is important and reporting improper user names is definitely important, but you should try to make the bulk of your edits be to article space.
  • RfA-worthiness: Forget about being an admin right now...I know you want the golden mop and bucket(I know because you signed up for admin coaching 4 days after starting your account and self-nomed yourself a mere week later), but the more you "posture" for the flags- the more people are going to be suspicious of your motives.
  • Final thoughts: The best advice I can give you is this: you've done a sh!tload of edits as a vandal fighter- you don't have to prove yourself in that area anymore. No one can say you aren't committed to stopping vandalism or the "back" areas of the 'pedia. Now it's time to prove yourself in article space. Make your next 1000 edits all article contributions. When I mean all I mean don't edit your user page, stay away from vandal fighting, and stay away from Project namespace(of course if someone leaves a message on your talk page, by all means reply). Just make contributions to articles (or as suggested above- make an article your own masterpiece on wikipedia). Get an article or two up to GA status or even FA status and you'll earn the trust of the community should you try for another RfA. You've done great work on Wikipedia, you just need to broaden your contribution and then the sky's the limit. Thanks, VictorianMutant (talk)

---

Mono*

A bit later, I've come back for more feedback, but I didn't want to create another subpage. If you'd like more up-to-date info or other stuff, just email me. The stuff from before probably isn't even valid now, but whatevs.  ℳono  feedback 03:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

---

CMBJ

CMBJ (talk · contribs · count) As an editor that has been around for about six years now, I'd like to hear some independent feedback.   — C M B J   06:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Questions

1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?

   I would probably have to say that my primary contributions tend to be in areas of esoteric interest, such as international, scientific and medical topics. Because many of my contributions have been spread across a lot of different stubs, it is difficult to specifically define what I am most pleased with--but I would reason that MON 863 is among the best examples in recent weeks.

3. Have you been in any disputes over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

   I do not recall anything particularly sour ever being shared between another user and myself, but I have always done (and always will do) my best to resolve editorial disagreements through reasoned discussion.

Reviews

• Hi. I only took a quick look at list of your last 500 edits. I see that you get involved in current events. On the list I noticed that you recently created Taxation in Pakistan. I don't question that the information in it is true. However it gives the impression that it was written to advance a political cause. Are there other articles on "Taxation in Nation X"? I expected to see a category at the bottom for these. Borock (talk) 07:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct; I do tend to contribute in areas related to current events. And there is indeed a set of "Taxation in X": Taxation in the United States, Taxation in the United Kingdom, Taxation in Australia, Taxation in the Republic of Ireland, Taxation in Canada, Taxation in the People's Republic of China, Taxation in New Zealand, Taxation in France, Taxation in Germany, Taxation in India, Taxation in Indonesia, Taxation in Switzerland, Taxation in Sweden, Taxation in Colombia, Taxation in the Palestinian territories, Taxation in Tanzania. The reason that I created Taxation in Pakistan was because I had come across this article set before, and I realized that I was already working with material that would be useful in sourcing a new stub. With regard to the content, the subject matter is intrinsically uncomplimentary—but I am still sorry to hear that my work struck you the way that it did, as I tried my best to dispassionately reiterate the material from the relevant sources. Also, there does appear to be a parent category for them all, but I must have overlooked this because some of the articles are in their own subcategories.   — C M B J   14:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I hope my comments were helpful. There are a lot of editors who are here to push political agendas so it's important to write in a way that shows your neutrality. I think so anyway. Wishing you the best. Borock (talk) 16:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion - enable the extra options on this tool, so you can get some extra info about your editing history.     Eclipsed   (t)     01:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

---

BarkingFish

BarkingFish (talk · contribs · count) I am here to request an Editor Review due to the fact that recently, I have found myself becoming very cynical of edits, especially those from IP addresses, and have found myself in less of a mood to accept things - see my arguments on the Pending Changes Straw poll talk page. I don't feel I'm a bad editor, but I have been under a lot of stress recently (having treatment for Cancer), and think this is a good time now to assess whether I need a proper break from this place for a bit. BarkingFish 21:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Questions

1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?

   My primary contributions have been vandal fighting, articles edits and copyediting, and the occasional translation from de.wikipedia to here.

3. Have you been in any disputes over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

   I couldn't even get close to answering that, these days someone only has to say the wrong thing at the wrong time, and not only do I bite, I will almost consume them whole. I have normally been able to deal with stress by taking a few days out, but with admin duties at 3 other projects now, tpi.wikipedia, tpi.wiktionary and en.wikinews I simply can't do that anymore. How I will deal with it in the future remains a mystery I don't think I can rightly solve yet.

Reviews

• Review by VictorianMutant:
  • Civility towards the community: I'm not going to address the civility issues because that would only be rehashing what you've already mentioned above.
  • Article contributions: You've contributed to several articles. One thing I've noticed is some of them are poorly sourced or have no references at all. The article Tabaluga which you appear to be the primary author of has no references. With some work (including removing the in-universe perspective, I think it could be a GA.
  • Edit count analysis: You have a long history here on the Wikipedia, but looks like you have a lot of peaks and valleys in your edit history. I'm not sure whether you get frustrated with contributions and leave for a few months, get bored with the whole thing, or whether things IRL prevent editing. In any case, you do a good amount of vandal fighting and that's a good thing.
  • RfA-worthiness: Honestly, the block in June would probably keep me from supporting you in an RfA, but with time and proof of increased levelheadedness, I would.
  • Final thoughts: Now is a tough time in your life and you asked whether or not you should take a break. Only you can answer that question... but I would say if editing Wikipedia(and the three other projects you are involved with) makes you feel good, then you should continue to edit. If Wikipedia is only providing you stress or only provides you enjoyment when you rip someone a new asshole, then you should probably take a break and do things you would really enjoy. Now is probably a good time to assess what is and is not important in your life and you may find staying away from the 'pedia for a while is a good thing. There are more important things in life than contributing to Wikipedia. You are an asset to the community and would be missed but you should always do whatever is best for you. Thanks, VictorianMutant (talk) 21:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Peter.C

Peter.C (talk · contribs · count) Hi, I'm Peter and I want to be reviewed to know what the wiki community thinks of me and if they could guide me on what I should do now. Peter.C • talk 21:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Questions

1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?

   I mostly do vandal fighting although now I am leaning more tward editing medical and video game articles. I wonder if I should stick with vandal fighting and or if I should move most of my work expanding articles.

3. Have you been in any disputes over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

   Never really had a dispute on Wikipedia although I do have some bad blood with a user on IRC. Now I just /ignore him.

Reviews

1. Great to have another keen editor at WP:MED. Getting involved with more editing of content will make you a more well rounded editor ie get into the trenches. A good way to get the feel of things is attempting to bring an article to WP:GAN. I have many suggestions if you are interested. Cheers, Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
2. I like the edit stats, but I would wonder if you have participated in XfD. Also, participation in RfAs is great. If you want to RfA yourself, you might cut back on the Huggling, as many editors do not like to see huge percentages of automated edits. It is nice though, to see another editor at WP:MED. If you have any questions regarding medical articles, feel free to ask me (I'm a cardiothoracic surgeon, so I would know cardio better than, say, nephro) Ronk01 talk 02:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Ctjf83

Ctjf83 (talk · contribs · count) I want to see what the community thinks of me as an editor. I welcome feedback from any editor, especially if you don't regularly work with me, and any feedback before I even consider WP:RfA CTJF83 chat 19:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Questions

1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?

   My primary contributions are to The Simpsons, Family Guy, and Iowa related articles, specificly Davenport, Iowa, I'm also somewhat involved with WP:AFD and New page patrol. I'm particularly pleased with my contributions to Davenport, as it is on the verge (I hope) of FA status, I've spent countless hours working on and improving, and hope my work will pay off when it is on the main page.

3. Have you been in any disputes over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

   I have dealt with disputes, I think relatively well. Sometimes I may let emotions get the better of me, but I am trying to remain civil during all disputes

Reviews

• Review by VictorianMutant:
  • Civility towards the community: I didn't feel like looking through all 34,000+ edits, but looks like you had one block for edit warring earlier this year. Other than that, no problems.
  • Article contributions: Look at this article here. Look familiar? Well, it was the last revision to Davenport, Iowa before you started editing it. It was unsourced(1 cite), boring, and basically crap and then you turned it into a great article, on the cusp of FA status. I've actually used your Davenport article as one of the "templates" for my work on city articles. Sure others worked on it, but this is your baby. I didn't need to look further, but I did. Your work to the Quad City article and various Simpsons and Family Guys article shows the same pride.
  • Edit count analysis: The majority of your time in article space, which is great. You have almost 2000 wikipedia edits which shows you're interested in the process, but not overly interested. Much experience with templates and files... overall looks good.
  • RfA-worthiness: Without a doubt, I would support you, but you know there will be opposes because of the block.
  • Final thoughts: You are a great editor who understands how to craft excellent articles and knows you are here to build an encyclopedia. You take your work seriously and are an asset to the community. I look forward to seeing you somewhere out there in wiki-land. VictorianMutant (talk) 07:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Thank you so very much for the review! Your positive comments make me feel like I'm appreciated here, thanks again!! CTJF83 chat 15:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Hi Ctjf83, I'd much rather say this now than in an RfA - I think you might want to have a careful look at some of your creations. Some wording (eg Kahl Building) is too close to the non-PD sources used. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Ya, that is the only thing holding me back right now. Any new pages I create, I ask User:Moonriddengirl to look it over, just to make sure it is ok. Thanks for your feedback. CTJF83 chat 16:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Petiatil

Petiatil (talk · contribs · count) I would like the input of other users in regards to my editing, because I edit a lot of articles that have been vandalized, and would like to know if I'm keeping a NPOV. Additionally, I would like to hear any ideas on other areas I could contribute, because I don't really know where to go from [reverting vandals] here. I'm very open to suggestions and welcome criticism. petiatil^{»User »Contribs} 02:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Questions

1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?

   In general I typically only fight vandalism, using various tools. Recently I've started using Auto Wiki Browser to go through pages and find errors, etc. Generally I pride myself on reviewing edits through Huggle, because I've found that a lot of people tend to make nonsensical edits. Other than that, I find myself reading a lot on en.wiki and traditionally will correct typos if I discover them and also added tags/templates to articles.

3. Have you been in any disputes over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

   Generally I try to stay neutral by using templates while warning users and only if necessary will I actually comment on a talk page (particularly user talk pages) to help clarify why I've reverted something or removed content. Generally the edit disputes I've encountered tend to be related to removing additions of [dubious] unsourced content, and some users don't understand our policy on reliable sources and including an informative edit summary especially if removing content.

Reviews

All in all, I would say you are a great contributor to the project. You have done a great many vandalism reversions and csd nominations. Your editing rate is impressive- over 1300 edits in February! I hope you keep it up! However, I do have a few recommendations to further your work on the project. On the deletion theme, I think you should definitely get involved at WP:AFD. I would also recommend more content work- from what I can tell (although I may have missed something in reviewing your contributions), you haven't really contributed any significant amount of content. No content work is fine- do what you love- but you may want to try working on a few articles, even if just to better understand the other editors on this project. Lastly, I would also recommend that you work on communication with other editors. You don't seem to make many comments on talk pages (except user warnings). In reading through your talk page, I noticed a few flustered new users asking you to stop reverting their good faith edits. While it was mostly content that deserved deletion, in a few cases it was in good faith. I noticed just recently you telling a user that though their content and link were good, they weren't formating the link properly and that it would be deleted- if not by you, by someone else. I would recommend that in that situation you take the new editor under your wing and either format the link for them or direct them to WP:MOS. Please don't take offense at what may appear to be a negative review. On the contrary, I think you are a great editor. You have really done some great things here and I wouldn't be surprised to see you at WP:Rfa soon. Good luck, and keep editing! E♴ (talk) 22:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• Review by VictorianMutant:
  • Civility towards the community: As E♴ said, don't bite the newbies. I'm kinda sensitive to that myself since I'm sort of a newbie (although I edited as an IP for a long time).
  • Article contributions: I'd like to challenge you: find an article which needs work and make it your masterpiece. Doesn't matter what topic, just find it and turn it into the best article that it can be. Vandal fighting is important and can be "fun" at times, but the ultimate gratification(on wikipedia at least) is building an article. Some people may be a little intimidated by it or afraid people won't like it, but the more you do it- the better you become at writing articles.
  • Edit count analysis: As mentioned above, try to do more work with article writing. Maybe some more work with AfD would be helpful, but first I would concentrate on article writing.
  • RfA-worthiness: With some more work with building articles and eventually AfD and other areas, I would gladly support you in an RfA.
  • Final thoughts: I just noticed that according to your user page, you are from Lakeland. I myself grew up in Bartow and do a ton of work on Polk County articles. If you need suggestions of articles to work on close to home, I could give a few. But do find that article which is crying out your name and make it a great article even if it means staying away from vandal fighting for a while... don't worry- someone else will pick up the slack. Thanks for your hard work and dedication. VictorianMutant (talk) 08:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• Overall I think you are a great editor and have made great contributions to Wikipedia. Your edit summaries are informative and you've done a great job catching vandalism. My only criticism is you weren't very nice to me when I removed info that was clearly false, especially considering I was new to Wikipedia. I agree with others that you could try adding content to articles, however dealing with vandalism is very important. Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia! Bobertoq (talk) 01:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Nascar1996

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Nascar1996 (talk · contribs · count) Hello, I am Nascar1996. I would like to get opinions from other people to see what I can improve on. Eventually, I would like to become an admin. I would really appreciate it if you comment below. Thank You. Nascar1996 23:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Questions

1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?

   My primary contributions are to NASCAR and Motorsport related articles, and I often create NASCAR races. I am particularly pleased with the most recent articles I have expanded. In which one became a good article, just seven days later. I am a big fan of NASCAR and I pay attention to all news. The articles I am most pleased with is 2010 Toyota/Save Mart 350 and 2010 Carfax 400.

3. Have you been in any disputes over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

   Sadly, yes I have been in editing disputes. Outside of Wikipedia, I forget everything that happened here. I do not let disputes cause me stress. I have dealt with them by asking a admin to help me. Afterwards, the dispute is done and gone. In the future, I should see if we could agree on anything. If not, I would say lets not so anything until we really know what to do.

Reviews

• Your NASCAR work is great, try going for a FA now! Also, as on Airplaneman's talk page, I agree you might want to try to expand your focus to other article work. I personally think hurricanes while are cool, I don't like them as I'm from Louisiana. As for going for admin, try going into more admin-related areas. I see you have 32 reports to AIV and 12 to RPP, which is good, but when it comes to vandal fighters, many people at RFA like to see a lot of reversion, but not too high a percentage of automated edits which might prove tricky. Though if you go like how you are now for half a year to a full year I think you still may have a decent shot at adminship. Also, out of curiosity, why do you have so many nullifed edits as per here? Keep it up and happy editing.Derild4921☼ 13:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm guessing the nullified edits were because of personal info. Check my userboxes page; I have 'em too (see WP:OVERSIGHT). As for admin advice, I'd say take it easy; take it slow. Don't let wanting adminship interfere with your work or cause you any stress. Your handling of disputes has been good so far; keep doing what you said you will do (keep a level head, log off for a while, etc.) and each time, you'll learn a bit more on how to better deal with disputes the next time. I'd suggest getting more familiar with XfD, maybe participating in a few deletion discussions in each venue (AfD, TfD, MfD, SfD, RfD, and FfD—especially the ones with backlogs in sore need of participants). Reading over the policies for each venue a couple times helps as well. Also, familiarize yourself with WP:IMAGE and related file conventions as well as CSD (WP:WIHS is an interesting essay that I encourage you to read). Hang around RFA to get a feel for what that's like. And of course, don't let this interfere with school or life in general! Otherwise, keep on editing. You're doing a superb job. Airplaneman ✈ 03:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Sjones23

Sjones23 (talk · contribs · count) I had an editor review nearly three years ago. I am considering another review here because I just passed my 18,000th edit count and it has been three years since my last editor review. I would also like some feedback on how I have been since I had my last review, which can be found here. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Questions

1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?

   I work on video game articles, tokusatsu articles, music articles, film articles, anime articles, and now game show articles. I am particulary pleased with the Final Fantasy series and Kingdom Hearts. I also report vandals at WP:AIV and participate in WP:ANI and WP:AN. I have also reverted unsourced content, vandalism and I have also created a few articles in my sandbox as well. Recently, I was granted rollbacker and reviewer rights, and I am most pleased with how they work along with Twinkle.

3. Have you been in any disputes over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

   I have been involved in one BLP dispute back in 2008 about Eriko Tamura, but I am usually polite about it without becoming any incivil. However, I am concerned about dealing with vandals by reverting edits, whether they are vandalism or unsourced content while maintaining good faith.

Reviews

• Good edits, nice use of edit summary. Your anti-vandalism work is good as well, but I'm curious on why you don't use automated tools? Although automated tools are not necessary, they would make your work go a lot easier. Also, would you mind opting-in to X!'s edit counter be created User:Sjones23/EditCounterOptIn.js? As a side note I would also suggest archiving your talk page as it dates back to 2006/07. Derild4921☼ 19:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Fæ

Fæ (talk · contribs · count) I'm passed my 18,000 edit milestone (>10,000 since my last review), so some feedback on my conduct and contributions might give me some direction for improving my Wikipedia skills. I have found that keeping WP:5P in mind rather than derivative, if well known, guidelines has helped when asked to justify my edits (or reversions). Fæ (talk) 17:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Questions

1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?

   My largest recent contributions to Wikipedia are:

   • Welcoming new users. I use some tailored templates to welcome users in different situations (Userspace/talk page only, possible POV or problematic editor, etc.) and sometimes this means editing or rolling back their first contribution and explaining what happened. I aim to use welcome templates rather than warning templates for a brand new editor unless they are a blatant spammer, sockpuppet or attack account.
   • Collaborating on WP:GLAM/BM. This involved some innovative workshops with British Museum staff and long term collaboration on articles to get them to a higher standard and in some cases to Featured article status (see Talk:Hoxne Hoard and Talk:Gebelein predynastic mummies). I was quite pleased with the helpful templates I created such as {{British-Museum-object}} and upgrading of {{British Museum}} as well as templates for use on Commons. A number of artefact photographs used in articles such as Royal Gold Cup (now FA) and Burney Relief (now GA) were taken by me.
   • The alumni problem. There is an ongoing issue with embedded unsourced and sometimes non-notable lists of people, particularly evident in lists of alumni of organizations but also with lists of people possibly from or born in a certain place. I have created User:Fæ/Alumni as a helpful summary and use some handy scripts/regex to mark uncited or red-link entries on these lists. The consensus is that any such list should include citations in the article though many users believe that this is excessive if the list has linked articles for each list member. An example list I have tidied up is List of Syrian people.

3. Have you been in any disputes over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

   Handling disputes. I try to avoid lengthy disputes, however examples of how I handle these debates are:

   • Talk:Johann Hari where an editor with a known potential COI repeatedly objected to mention of pro-Israel organizations in the article and I proposed a neutral version. I made good use of the WP:3O process to gain an independent perspective. I think the debate went on too long and it may have been more efficient to use WP:COIN.
   • After raising Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mico Apostolov, the creator of the article 8MA8 became rather problematic and it appeared likely there was some COI issues (I raised the relevant advice on their talk page) and that they may have been using sockpuppets. Luckily another user raised Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/8MA8 and I added some of the other likely puppets that started to cause problems removing the article AfD notice and attempting to lobby the deletion discussion. Particularly after one of these puppets attempted to accuse me of being a puppetmaster in retaliation, I gave enough time for other editors to intervene rather than being tempted to react to problems as they occurred.

   Dealing with vandals.

   • After the new user list, my second largest source of vandal identification comes from my watchlist. This is mostly just simple user warnings and welcomes if a first contribution. I make reasonable use of WP:AIV and WP:RPP when this fails. I pick up quite a few commercial organizations using Wikipedia for free advertising, with the relevant warning most go away, some ask for help (I often point to WP:COIN as a place for further discussion of what they want to do) and a few get abusive and I ignore them as it's not long before someone else gets around to blocking the account.
   • The long term puppetmaster Amandabilliot was originally identified by me and I raised a second round of accounts for blocking using the SPI process. This is a rather subtle misuse of Wikipedia to host dummy user pages using copied articles. The motivation for this person is still unclear and they have refused to explain why they do it. As there is little pattern between the accounts it is likely that the majority are still out there unblocked. I have helped and reported other sockpuppet issues but this has not been a major component of my time.
   • Talk:Yolanda Soares has suffered problematic long issues with hoax sources and apparent tampering from an anonymous IP that recently claimed to be a writer for the same artist. Researching the sources (using 'whois' website checks and reviewing details of the terms and conditions) revealed a number of them to be suspect and were removed. For the recent challenge of defamation, I applied the advice of WP:NLT and raised the matter for attention on WP:AIV even though the claims appeared to have little substance.
   • Repeatedly reverting - it worries me when my reversions may be correct (such as reverting someone adding disputed personal information) but I end up re-reverting the possible vandal. I try and leave it to others to intervene when I have reverted twice already, a clear edit comment helps and sometimes a talk page comment when the text is blatantly problematic. Anytime I realize I have reverted 3 times I always feel guilty and vow to rely on discussion and help from other editors rather than baiting another editor into a potential edit war; I do not believe that just because I am supported by existing consensus or policy means I have a mandate to side-step civil behaviour.

Reviews

• I'm not really the best person to comment, as I'm quite new here. However, I wanted to say that your quickness and dedication to vandalism-fighting is really impressive. I only have a few pages watchlisted, but you're usually the one who reverts the vandalism in most of them, and I see you warning on the talk pages of many anonymous vandals, and from a quick look at your talk page, you seem to be usually quite civil. :) I just want to thank you for all you do here and ask you to keep up the excellent work. Sincerely, → Clementina [ Scribble ] 12:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

* Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elfwood (2nd nomination) was a poor nomination. Fae should please review WP:BEFORE to improve the quality of future work of this sort. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Strike old comment, see below.Fæ (talk) 07:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

• I return to comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Learned pigs & fireproof women and find that I have been here before — tsk. I shall not repeat myself and User:Drmies seems to think that User:Fæ is well aware of such WP guidelines and policies. To take a different tack, I suggest that Fæ make some civil approach to the author of that article. This might be an apology or perhaps an offer to help with the article now that its bona fides are well-established. This might then offset the bad impression made by the templated warnings and attempts to delete this notable topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes Colonel, you have been here before. Unfortunately you refused to answer my follow up questions back in August, hence I removed your comment (diff) and now I find you trivially grieving me here about old issues long dead. Please take some time to dust the chips from your shoulders and do something more useful. You will note I have never approached you on any matter apart from responding to some of your complaints about me and I respectfully request that you leave me alone and let other experienced Wikipedians advise me. Fæ (talk) 07:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

You complain that I don't talk to you and then you complain that I do. I shall do as you suggest and invite other experienced Wikipedians to advise you. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

---

Sm8900

Sm8900 (talk · contribs · count) Interested to get feedback from fellow editors. have done work on a number of topics recently. interested to hear some thoughts, comments, feedback. Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Questions

1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?Here are some: Performance art -made major contribution to definition. Valley of Peace initiative keep article current and updated. Robot#Social_impact; wrote this section, added much data and refs. History of Israeli-Palestinian conflict. --revised article a lot in the past. (not so much recently). also: Projects working for peace among Arabs and Israelis, History of England, US Army Service Uniform. Generally I do edits on a number of articles, much of them in history, politics, etc. also do some pop culture. also have done a bunch of new categories in the past.
3. Have you been in any disputes over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

   not much. a few years ago, was involved in dispute resolution at israeli-Palestinian topic area, in helping to resolve disputes. this was even though i am an involved editor.Also, around the same time, jan 2008, involved in editing dispute in climate change article.

Reviews

• Review by VictorianMutant:
  • Civility towards the community: Wow, no one could ever accuse you of steering clear of contentious articles. Israeli–Palestinian conflict, Ten Lost Tribes, and Global warming. And you've managed to keep a blemish-free block record. You are definitely a better person than most...
  • Article contributions: You are definitely here to contribute to articles. A quick glance of some of your edits tells me you are a good writer. So the one glaring area missing to me from your edit history is GA's and FAC's. I think it would be fairly easy to get a few of the articles you've worked on up to good article status, and even featured article status.
  • Edit count analysis: Your graph impresses me. Looking further into your contributions tells me you're very active in discussions, both in Wikipedia space and on article talk space. Keep up the good work.
  • RfA-worthiness: I would definitely support... don't know how many enemies have been made on some of the controversial articles, though.
  • Final thoughts: You are a great asset to the Wikipedia community. Like I said, I think you could get a few of your articles to be GA's really easily and if I were you and had your talents, I would... Thanks for all you do, VictorianMutant (talk) 02:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your great comments!! and thanks for your helpful ideas and thoughts. appreciate it. feel free to be in touch anytime. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

---

Chevymontecarlo

Chevymontecarlo (talk · contribs · count) Been a user for about 1 year now, have been making lots of edits but would just like to see whether my article edits have been useful. Chevymontecarlo 09:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Questions

1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?

   Helping new users at WP:FEED, Occasionally answering questions at WP:RD, and answering requests in the live help chat. I'm pleased with all of those things because other users have been helped by me and got their articles improved significantly.

3. Have you been in any disputes over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

   Not been in really any editing disputes, probably because I'm not bold enough and tend to be very conservative and careful with my edits. I also try and be as kind and patient as possible with other users, particularly new ones.

Reviews

• Hi Chevymontecarlo! (great nick btw) I recognize the name from the great work you do at WP:FEED and AfC. You seem dedicated, polite, and astute judging by your edits at WP:FEED. I very much respect that you choose to help new editors in this way and commend you for doing it. I've seen nothing but good edits from you so I don't have much else to say except keep it up! :) œ^™ 12:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow, you are so kind. Thanks a lot! Chevymontecarlo 14:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

---

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Mlpearc

Mlpearc (talk · contribs · count) I am curious and would like a few in-depth looks into my whole history. I hope not to commit wikicide. I would, in a few months like to consider a RfA. As an Admin I would like to start by helping with "request", UAA, Rollback, AWB, RPP, ACC those types of actions, while working my way into AIV and eventually in to ANI and the CheckUser end of the spectrum SPI. And would help anywhere asked. Comment for reviewers, I've already been through the "Why soo many edits in your user space, that's where I worked in between learning what to do, what I liked and I learned a lot working on my user space. Uncivil replies, comments and suggestions will be ignored. Constructive criticism and suggestions will be welcomed, applied and appreciated. Mlpearc powwow 05:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• This came about after I opened my Request [1]. Mlpearc powwow 04:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Here you can find the links for more info and the results of above.[2], which has now been archived. Mlpearc powwow 17:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Questions

1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?

   Fighting vandalism is my past time when nothing else is happening, since I'm not a writer and not even a avid reader, content contributions are not and probably never will be an asset, I say "probably" because who knows some day I could have a stroke of genius. I love Link Classifier and think it should be standard issue for all editors, so my content contrib's are mostly fixing redirected and disambiguation links. I'm most proud of This (this was my Proposal even though I forgot to sign it) because I was still (in my mind) new to the in's and out's of Wiki, and the out come was This. I tried before to have this information added to the encyclopedia. which I bring up in the next question. After spending way too much time building my user space I now spend most of my time in the Wiki's IRC as a Account Creator and I work with the Abuse Response team. And finally I am involved with a few of fellow Wikipedians, who I consider friends, in building TechEssentials

3. Have you been in any disputes over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

   Yes. This. (this is the first part I'll let whoever is looking decide how deep they want to dig.) is the one that stands out in my memory because it was the most compelling and honestly the biggest, I've had two or three line spats, but this one had me feeling that, I try and contribute and get the "This isn't worthy" notion to my contribution how dare they ? Yes, this had me stressed and I vented and spoke my mind and tried to remain civil and intelligent. If I remember right this went around a few places I'll try to give some links: [3], [4], and the next 2 sections. This led me to take a couple days, a week away oh and post a pretty decorative "See Ya !" on my user page, and well in the back of my mind I knew I was coming back, and I think that was the best thing to do, just take a break before helping or letting the whole thing get out of control of course at the time I didn't realize that was the best thing, and in the future I know I have that tool and will do the same, if it's something urgent then just as easy to let someone who will and can take over.

Reviews

• This is a very quick comment not a real review, so I am going to leave the asterisk be for now. But your masses of userboxes about adminship on various testing and personal wikis would alone make me uncomfortable supporting an RfA, putting my other misgivings aside. You don't use the tools on half these wikis, and they're hardly relevant to enwiki. That in itself is not an issue except that it is very misleading for newcomers with respect to your status on this wiki, as they may be overwhelmed by it. But the more important issue is that you look power-hungry. Please consider that. If you have any questions about this comment or want a fuller review, my talk/email is open. Regards, sonia^♫♪ 08:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

  Thank you Sonia for your observations. And you are right activity's outside en-wiki have little to do with what I do here, but they are things that I am involved with. Mlpearc powwow 14:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• I see you're considering adminship. Just some advice then. I looked over some of your little 'spats' and, regardless of who's in the wrong or in the right, it's how you carry yourself in these affairs that may be a deciding factor in a user's decision whether to support you or not. Professionalism and maturity are the hallmarks of a good enwiki administrator. You have to be stern but not stubborn, as you should always looking for a way to resolve the situation with as little drama as possible. Staying humble, not being snipey, is the key to successful dispute resolution. WP:PRIDE is a very important essay and IMO should be required reading for anyone wanting to become an admin. -- œ^™ 12:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

  Thank you OE for your input. Good advise. Do you have any thoughts on my editing ? Mlpearc Public (talk) 19:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

RJC

RJC (talk · contribs · count) I have been an editor for a number of years now. My edits are increasingly restricted to routine tasks (vandalism reversion, AfD, etc.), so I am thinking about applying to become an administrator and would like some feedback first. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 19:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Questions

1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?

   I am mainly involved in articles relating to the history of political philosophy, deletion discussions regarding academics and philosophic concepts, and some policy discussions. Two Treatises of Government and Epistles (Plato) are representative of pages I have contributed significantly to; I restructured the philosophy section of Friedrich Nietzsche to address persistent NPOV issues.

3. Have you been in any disputes over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

   I think editing disputes of some kind are unavoidable (whether to call Friedrich Nietzsche a "German" recurs with some frequency, for example). The only disputes that have been stressful have involved insulting or tendentious editors. I hew to the 3RR and hash things out over the talk page.

Reviews

• Review by VictorianMutant:

Sorry it took so long to get to this review. I actually started it a few weeks back, but somehow got destarcted in real life and forgot about it. As for whether you are ready for admin... I would support you. You have been here for 5 years which shows a huge amount of trust. Some who might oppose though would do so because: (1) The most edits you have in any month is 259. (2) You have less than 5000 total edits and less than 2500 article edits. (3) You have a ton of "B" articles to your credit, but don't seem to have any GA's or FA's. Personally, I think you are well-rounded and the kind of candidate we need running for Rfa- you have a good knowledge of policy, you seem to be mature, and aren't likely to ever abuse the tools.

• Civility towards the community: I don't see any huge problems here. Editing Nietzsche is a tough area. I wouldn't want to do it, but someone has to.
• Article contributions: You have a ton of edits to a lot of articles- 5 articles you've contributed 100 or more edits to and at least 10 you've contributed 50 to. I would try to bring a few of those articles to GA status which would help you in an Rfa.
• Edit count analysis: You've spent the majority of your time on articles which is a good thing, but you also have ample experience vandal fighting and in Xfd discussions. You are a very well rounded user.
• RfA-worthiness: As mentioned above, I would support (probably Strong Support), but there would be those who would oppose because of editcountis(as if it's a bad thing to have a real life outside of Wikipedia. I suspect if you went to Rfa right now (and this is just a guess), you would probably get more supports than opposes, but not enough for consensus.
• Final thoughts: Regardless of whether you go to Rfa or not, I would like to thank you for being a very valuable asset to the project. What would improve your chances at Rfa? (1) Try to have one or two months with at 500 edits if you can. (2) Get rollback, even if you are content with twinkle for vandal fighting. (3) Shepherd a few articles up to GA or even FA status. (4) Get involved in a WikiProject of some sort. Good luck and hope to see you out there! VictorianMutant (talk) 23:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

---